Sensory Aesthetics: Science Informs Aesthetics
Moin Rahman
Motorola
Plantation, FL 33322, USA
moin.rahman@motorola.com
ABSTRACT
Any modern, functional artifact – the car, cellphone,
camera, etc. – can be viewed as a microcomputer-driven
machine embodied in multiple mediums to facilitate
human-machine interaction. They not only have to deliver
a function(s) but should also fulfill the affective and
aesthetic needs of the user through the many mediums
(physical, virtual, aural, etc.) in which they are manifested.
A construct called ‘sensory aesthetics’ has been conceived
to investigate the processing of aesthetic information
contained in a functional artifact by its user. At an
operational level, it postulates that the aesthetic information
is filtered through a set of six concatenated, overlapping
filters (deep structures, culture, ecology, behaviors,
affordance and epoch). The filtering approach is rooted in
the social and psychological sciences due to the fact that
culture, context and cognitions are the primary drivers
through which a group’s – and by extension an individual’s
– aesthetic sense and needs are shaped. In the practice
standpoint, information gleaned through the sensory
aesthetics approach can be used to make informed decisions
and shape the aesthetics of a product and its interface for a
given context and users. Finally, the sensory aesthetics
approach demonstrates that science and art can partner in
constructive ways in the product design process.
Author Keywords
Sensory aesthetics, art, industrial, product & interface
design, culture, emotion, cognition.
INTRODUCTION
Art and science – and, by extension, artists and scientists –
are traditionally viewed as tenuously connected (if at all)
human endeavors. The alienation of these two types is often
stereotypically romanticized as the former living and
practicing art in a commune of bohemians; and, the latter,
donning white coats while assiduously laboring in a lab
with beakers and gauges. And artists purportedly thrive in
creativity that is fueled by chaos whereas scientists
supposedly survive on empirical rigor and worship
analytical thought. As the scientific revolution blossomed,
the fissure between the sciences and art deepened. It was
lamented that calculation and measurement displaced the
cultivation and passion engendered by the arts [1]. The
tensions between the two domains where first presented in a
landmark lecture (The Rede lecture, 1959) by C.P. Snow
1
Ira Jhangiani
Motorola
Plantation, FL 33322, USA
ira.jhangiani@motorola.com
under the title The Two Cultures [1] and is still palpable to
this day.
One may argue that the notions of artistic and scientific
creativity are convenient social constructions that channel
the emotional and rational pursuits of humanity. For
instance, it is an accepted fact that architecture informs the
aesthetics of a building whereas engineering provides its
structural solutions. However, this rigid bifurcation is being
blurred of late by new and novel emerging architectural
practices such as Informal [2]. For example, one of the
motifs of the Informal school is to expose and accentuate
how the [load-bearing] structure counters and routes the
forces of gravity – and, in the process, engenders an
aesthetic appreciation around the structure itself in the mind
of the perceiver.
Machine as Art
The industrialization of art is a fairly recent phenomenon
that came to fore at the dawn of the industrial revolution.
This “new art” of “industrial design” came as a response to
the rise of machine-made mass products [3] in order to
increase their appeal by going beyond the essential
requirements such as functionality and usability. In other
words, a machine or tool had to artistically express itself
through its character and composition to fulfill the
emotional needs of the user. Furthermore, from the
semiotic point of view, it had to not only denote function
but also had to connote symbolic value [4] such as class,
status, wealth, austerity, power, etc. The value proposition
in the manufacturer’s standpoint was straightforward: to
make the product saleable it had to be made palatable to the
human senses. In recent years this has been studied under
the rubric of the ‘power of positive affect’ – the perception
that “attractive things work better” and the role of
“pleasure” in human-product interaction [5, 6].
Humans and their Arts
Humans are said to have an innate predisposition and
proclivity to create and consume art. Ethologists point out
that art, as a trait has been selected by evolution, as it
provides “enabling mechanisms for the performance of
selectively valuable behaviors such as appropriating the
material needs of life” (food, tools, shelter, etc.) [7]. For
instance, it is conjectured that prehistoric man – in a
dangerous, unknown, unsure and unpredictable world –
made sure that his technology (spear, pottery, etc.) worked
by deliberately reinforcing it with emotionally satisfying
special [artistic] elaborations and shaping.
Cultural anthropologists point out that art was integral to
ritual whose purpose was to inculcate group identity,
cooperation, cohesiveness and cooperation. Furthermore, by
imposing culture on nature they sought to control nature. In
earlier times art and ritual were interwoven and were
considered a “divine and mysterious visitation.” This
approach was made necessary for the group to protect itself
from disease, vagaries of nature, and the dangers associated
with acquisition of food (hunting).
Functional Art
In the preceding section we showed that functional art – the
art incorporated into prehistoric technology (weapons,
tools, etc.) – is almost as old as our species (homo sapiens).
And it should be emphasized that we distinguish functional
art – the art of technology, machines, etc. – from the
representational (art, sculpture, etc.) and performance arts
(drama, music, poetry, etc.).
Industrialized Art
The industrialized art of today is a natural and logical
extension of the functional art that began in prehistoric
times. Obviously, there is one crucial difference: In earlier
times, the consumer was his own designer & artist
(designer-artist-consumer); or, as civilization advanced,
they were at least in close proximity (e.g., the consumer
directly interacted with the craftsperson, and thus,
influenced the style, form and functional aspects of the
product). However, these earlier models have been
supplanted with the industrialization of technology, chiefly
characterized by mass production and an increased
complexity of the technology itself. This has divorced the
consumer from his designer-artist self and has distanced the
professional designer-artist from the ultimate end-user.
Although we use the term “industrialized art” it is not
restricted to the machines of the industrial age. It also
includes microcomputer based machines such as
appliances, tools and toys – and their virtual interfaces.
The ‘divorce’ and ‘distancing’ of designer from consumer
is ameliorated by providing a limited ability to customize a
product or its interface through skins and themes. However,
this is not true with all products, and even when provided
they are mostly superficial and don’t provide the structural
latitude to reconfigure the aesthetics at a deeper level.
Finally, a word on terminology. For the sake of
consistency, we will use the term “product design” to refer
to all functional artifacts that are used to accomplish a
particular goal such as transport, communicate, entertain,
cook, etc. And, as one might expect, almost all of these
modern day, functional artifacts are either driven or
managed (or both) by microcomputers.
RECONNECTIONS
In this paper, we explore means by which the professional
designer can be reconnected to the end user, particularly in
the realm of aesthetics. The intent here is to focus on the
abstract qualities of a product in the sensorial point of view
and not on its tangible issues such as features, function or
usability. As a matter of fact, the latter has an established
tradition in industry where methods such as contextual
inquiry, usability testing, etc., are used to inform the
tangibles in product design and development. However,
our literature review has shown no formal theory, practice
or tradition exists to systematically inform the aesthetics of
a product or its interface. We hope to fill this gap – at least,
begin a line of inquiry – on a theoretical basis based on the
research we have done in the social, psychological and
human factors sciences.
To get started, we would like to begin with fundamentals,
by defining aesthetics.
AESTHETICS
The ancient Greeks used the term “aesthetic” to refer to
sensation and feelings – good or bad, beautiful or ugly [8].
However, modern usage has somewhat corrupted the
original connotation and now it is used as a synonym for
“beautiful.”
Our objective is to use the word aesthetic in its original
sense. And to emphasis the original meaning and contrast it
from modern day usage we have coined the term “sensory
aesthetic.” That is, the sensory feelings (good or bad)
evoked by the aesthetics (beautiful or ugly) of a product or
interface.
Next, we describe and define sensory aesthetics from what
is known from the affective and psychological sciences.
Sensory Aesthetics
The common notion of product aesthetics typically links it
with the visual medium through form, color, patterns, visual
syntax, etc. This is understandable given product design’s
roots in the visual arts. However, many artifacts stimulate
one or more senses – tactile, olfactory, auditory and visual –
as part of their function (e.g., ring tone on a cellphone) or
do it as an incidental byproduct of their function (e.g., the
crackle of a rifle shot and the odor of gunpowder, which
follows that; or in the case of a sports car, the sounds
produced by its internal combustion engine, the input it
provides to the equilibrioception [sense of linear
acceleration] of the driver). We consider these unimodal or
multimodal stimulations (visual and non-visual) crucial
because it is known that the body with its total sensing
apparatus assesses the environmental conditions in multiple
modalities on a cathectic basis; that is, intuitive, emotional,
uninformed judgment, feel good or feel bad, adumbration,
making benefit or loss assessments, adjusting and
readjusting [9].
Formally, we define sensory aesthetics as a first order
orientation response that is automatic, fast, instinctive,
nonconscious, and effortless to the aesthetics of the stimuli
leading to an instant and implicit conclusion on its aesthetic
valence. In the sensory standpoint, it is analogous to the
concept of direct perception [10], in the physical
environment, where an organism gleans meaning inherent
in its environment without any explicit mental calculation.
In the social domain (human-human interaction), its akin to
‘thin slicing’ [11] – i.e., reliably gleaning information
through “instantaneous impressions” about a person’s
identity, disposition and intent, with a brief exposure. In
other words, valid conclusions can be drawn from fleeting
impressions and minimal information (thin slices) without
requiring a vast cornucopia of information (large slice) or
rigorous analysis.
Likewise, we argue that the aesthetics of a product can be
reliably sensed through thin slicing and it neither requires
inferential reasoning nor is it necessary that it be mediated
by language. The concept of sensory aesthetics can be best
appreciated in the words of Le Corbusier [12] who made his
observations concerning the empathetic ideals of
architecture (here we treat the building as a product serving
a certain function): “…the disposition of elements in a
building should be such a way that the sight of them affects
us immediately by their delicacy or their brutality, their riot
or their serenity, their indifference or their interest.” At a
subjective level, it can be said that the sensory aesthetic
experience engenders an “esthetic emotion” [13], which is
said to arise before any experience or knowledge of the
object can be accumulated.
In a human information processing standpoint, the sensory
aesthetic experience should be viewed as a gradually
changing continuum, with the bulk of the processing
occurring at the visceral level (which is automatic, fast,
parallel and affective processing) and diminishing as one
ascends to the higher cortical centers (where slow,
deliberate, serial and rational cognition occurs) of the brain.
The opposite of sensory aesthetic is the cogitated aesthetic
where the affective reaction of a product’s aesthetics is
generated through deliberate analysis (intellectualization
and rationalization). Some examples of the cogitated
aesthetic would be as follows: (1) a consumer marveling
and reflecting the conncinity, symmetry, craftsmanship or
finish in a product’s form factor (e.g., sports car); or the
user recalling the elegance with which an interface
presented information and guided him towards successfully
accomplishing his goal (e.g., online ticket reservation
system). We will not discuss the cogitated aesthetic further
as it is beyond the scope of this paper.
We have adapted Don Norman’s three-level processing
model [5] to visually describe and contrast the sensory and
cogitated aesthetics, respectively (Figure 1).
3
Sensory Aesthetic Cogitated Aesthetic
Bulk of the processing Bulk of the processing
occurs at the visceral level, occurs at the reflective
(denoted by the width of the level, (denoted by the width
left bar.) of the right bar.)
Figure 1. Sensory vs. Cogitated Aesthetic: viewed under the
rubric of Don Norman’s three-level [user] processing of
design.
In design theory, Norman’s design framework has been
interpreted as having three rigid levels [14], which, in turn,
evoke three very different cognitive reactions: (1) aesthetic
impression (visceral level cognition:
attractive\unattractive); (2) semantic interpretation
(behavioral level cognition: functional\use); and (3)
symbolic association (reflective level cognition:
personal/social significance). However, our definition of
sensory aesthetic – informed by the fact that affect precedes
cognition, i.e., “preferences need no inferences” [15] – does
not adhere to the rigid, three level model. Because we
hypothesize that the user can non-consciously sense the
affective component present at all three levels (visceral,
behavioral and reflective) at once, to varying [diminishing]
degrees without requiring deliberate cognition. For
example, a certain watch can be perceived as having ‘high’
status merely on first impressions because it simply ‘feels’
elegant and sophisticated. This precludes any formal
cognition such as deliberate analysis of material, finish or
[discretionary] branding information [8].
DISCOVERING THE SENSORY AESTHETIC
The idea of universal design – as applied to form (not to be
confused with design for people with disabilities) – has
received its fair share of criticism [16]. This is because
universal design seeks a language of product form
compatible with any technology, for any culture at any
time. The aesthetic here is valorized and commoditized
because of its enforced uniformity, which neither takes into
account individual tastes nor cultural norms of a people.
Furthermore, the intense competition prevailing in the
marketplace, results in asymmetric attention [rightfully so]
being paid, to non-aesthetic attributes of a product, such as
functionality, features, usability, price, etc., at the cost of
aesthetics. Simply because aesthetics even if perceived as
valuable is considered highly subjective and ethereal and
not robust enough to guarantee a return on investment.
In a fast paced industrial setting, there is insufficient time to
pay enough thought to discovering the ideal aesthetic for a
product; universal design often times becomes the recourse.
Moreover, a formal process – using either the social or
psychological sciences – is not readily available to quickly
and efficiently inform the development of the aesthetic of a
product besides a few exceptions, with limited scope (e.g.,
Kansei [17]).
In the rest of the paper, we present a systematic process –
informed by the social and psychological sciences – to
discover the elements that are crucial to shape the sensory
aesthetic of particular products that are designed to be used
in a given context and operating environment by a specific
group of users. Furthermore, this process highlights the
nexus between science and art: that is, the utilization of the
rational and empirical methods of science to inform the
emotional and empathy evoking qualities of an artifact
through its aesthetics.
AESTHETIC FITNESS
The concept of aesthetics in product design can be studied
through at least two avenues:
1) The ‘artistic universals’ approach that are
prerequisites to evoke a positive valence in the
minds of the perceivers regardless of their culture,
ecology, etc. This approach usually involves in
determining attributes that are required to evoke a
positive valence in terms of mass, surface and plan
[13], form, proportion, arrangement, conncinity,
novelty, etc. [8], Gestalt psychology [11], and
neuroaesthetics [18].
2) The fitness of the aesthetic for a specific set of
users in terms of their culture, context and purpose
(high level goals) – by viewing them as
particularized instances or localizations.
We focus on the question of aesthetic fitness because not
much information exists in this area and because of its
significance, on aesthetic grounds, in terms of determining
a product’s success or failure. In the rest of this paper, we
explore the role of cultural, social, contextual, temporal
factors, among others, in shaping a group’s aesthetic
appetite and how it could inform the design of a product,
which can be used to inform the design so that it will
increase the aesthetic fitness of a product so that it feels
natural, right, and positive [valence] to its users.
SIX FILTERS
Aesthetics of a product neither emerges ex nihilo nor does it
exist in the absence of a human perceiver. The perceiver
filters the [sensory] aesthetics of a product through his
culture, knowledge, experiences, historical epoch –
including the repertoire of proximal behaviors he expects to
perform with the product to fulfill an ultimate need.
We postulate the existence of at least six major filters
through which a user senses and perceives the sensory
aesthetic of a product. Below we present these six filters
and their underlying rationale.
Deep Structures: products exist to fulfill certain needs (e.g.,
transportation, communication, security, etc.) and to satiate
emotional needs (e.g., display status, intrinsic pleasure,
etc.). The ‘needs’ are really the tip of the iceberg as they
reside on deeply-rooted desires (e.g., Maslow’s hierarchy of
needs) that are driven by intrinsic (derived from play,
feelings of belonging, balance and coherence) and extrinsic
motivations (anticipation of goal accomplishment). They
are met with the surface level artifacts such as a car (for
transportation), cellphone (communication), weapon
(security), etc. The ability\inability of a product to convey
its fitness to fulfill the deep structures will influence if the
aesthetics is either perceived positively or negatively. For
example, a consumer who puts safety as a top issue when
shopping for an automobile will accord a higher aesthetic
valence to a model whose mass, form, plan, proportion,
among other elements, aesthetically conveys attributes such
as strength, sturdiness and protection.
Ecology: A product has to be harmonious in the ecology in
which it is used. The ecology is shaped by the
geographical, physical, demographic, organizational and
semiotic setting. If a product’s aesthetic is out of place with
its ecology it will be perceived negatively. For example, a
colorful, snazzy, highly dynamic interface commonly seen
on gaming devices for teenagers may not be appropriate as
a theme on a human-machine interface used on a
commercial aircraft.
Behaviors: The rituals and rhythms of living, working and
playing are governed by master routines known as
fundamental or prosematic [19] behaviors, which are
governed by the ‘primitive’ emotional centers in the brain.
As these behaviors are adaptive (selected by evolution) they
are of high value to an organism. If a product’s look and
feel is perceived as supportive, or amplifying the
prosematic behavior(s) governing a particular activity, it
will be much preferred over another product that may lack
these qualities. For instance, a gaming device and its
interface, should emphasis fun and playfulness through its
form, color, animations, etc., so that it supports the
psychological derivatives (fun, excitement, flow) of the
prosematic behavior centered around play.
Culture: The culture governing a human collective (e.g.,
nationality, firefighters, urban teens, etc.) shapes their
beliefs, preferences and predispositions. A product’s
aesthetic should be harmonious with a group’s culture to be
accepted and appreciated. For instance, a ‘contractor-
grade’ power tool that has too much of aesthetic detail
(relief, lines and colors), may not win the approval of a
group of workers belonging to the construction industry.
Affordances: The intuitive grasp or potential for action
should be palpable in a product. The information
concerning the purpose and operation of product should be A Deeper Look at Select Filters
presented in a lucid, intuitive and inviting manner because Given the space constraints, we have chosen to illustrate
the resulting affordance has the potential to enhance the three of the six filters – ecology, culture and behavior – in
aesthetic appeal of the product. For example, if a very greater detail. Given our experience with designing
beautiful looking DVD player does not immediately convey wireless communication solutions for mission critical
operational details (how to load a disc and play) through its domains, such as law enforcement, we have picked that
interface because it provides either hidden or false domain for our illustrations.
affordance [20], then, its aesthetic appeal will be
diminished. Ecology
A product has to live and thrive in the ecology that is native
Epoch: The epoch is the ‘zeitgeist’ [8] of an age. It is the to its users. The elements of ecology in the context of
‘spirit of the times,’ which is manifested due to political or product design are presented in the Table below.
social revolutions or evolutions, popular sentiments and
technological breakthroughs. It may also be shaped by trend Elements of Ecology Features (examples)
setters, taste makers, reviewers, social commentators and Geographical\Physical terrain, climate, altitude, etc.
culture critics present in a society. Every epoch has its own
styles, fashions and fads (e.g., classical, Roman, Byzantine, Demographic socioeconomic strata, age
Renaissance, Modern, etc.). A product’s aesthetics needs to group, gender, etc.
be synchronous with its epoch if it has to appeal to its
Operational modes mobile vs. fixed; night vs. day;
audience. For example, the first modern airliner, the
covert vs. overt; personal vs.
Douglas DC-3, was the most influential icon of the 1930s.
work
The airplane’s aerodynamic form influenced the design of
other products such as cars, locomotives – and even radios Organizational codes public vs. private sector; single
and refrigerators – as they sported smooth, curving and vs. multi user; emergency vs.
“streamlined” surfaces [8]. regular; mission critical vs.
To reiterate our earlier point of sensory aesthetics, we argue non critical.
that a consumer will be able to thin slice the aesthetic Interactions slow vs. fast; economical vs.
information of a product through these six filters, and deliberative; utilitarian vs.
instantly conclude – based on the valence, the aesthetic pleasure deriving
emotion it engenders – whether it is boring, exciting,
beautiful or ugly. We view these six, lens-like filters as a Semiotics design and aesthetics of pre-
concatenated set, with some overlaps, that affectively color existing artifacts, symbology,
the perception of a product’s aesthetics as it is resolved jargon, clothing, cuisine, etc.
(brought into focus) in the mind of the perceiver (Figure 2).
Table 1. Elements of ecology
It is possible that a product and the setting or context in
which its sensory aesthetic is perceived may alter the order, Next we discuss the implications of ecology in the context
size and influence of these filters. For instance, in the case of law enforcement for a high altitude railway system
of a modern artifact such as a cellphone, affordance may (railway link connecting Golmud, China to Lhasa, Tibet).
move-up the hierarchy of filters – as there is an intrinsic In Table 2, we have picked two ecological elements and
psychological need to immediately perceive on how to use expanded on them for this particular case. And Figure 3
it and actually use\interact with it. Whereas, say, in the case provides a visual glimpse of the geographical\physical
of apparel culture and epoch will probably trump other ecological element.
filters in order and importance when a subject perceives the
sensory aesthetic.
Elements of Ecology Features Aesthetic
(examples) Implications
Geographical\Physical Snowcapped Physically
mountains, demanding,
high altitude cognitive
(16,000 ft.), impoverishment
low oxygen (low oxygen),
(30% - 40% physiologically
of sea level), taxing,
Figure 2. Perceiving the sensory aesthetic through six cold, dangerous, high
filters permafrost risk, scenic and
breathtakingly

5
 beautiful imprimatur that conveys officialdom, government and
authority.
Semiotics Tibetan’s Conflicting
love for color aesthetics Culture
and (Tibetan vs. The social psychologist, Geert Hofstede, using the
resplendence Communist). metaphor of computer software, succinctly defined culture
vs. the as the “collective programming of the mind which
official distinguishes the members of one group or category of
Chinese people from another”[21]. Hofstede identified three
[communist] elements (symbols, values and rituals) and five independent
aesthetic that dimensions of culture (power distance, uncertainty
is stark, dour avoidance, individualism vs. collectivism, masculinity vs.
and plain. feminity and long-term vs. short-term orientation).

Table 2. Elements of ecology and their aesthetic implications
Figure 3. Perceiving the sensory aesthetic through six filters
Now let’s focus on the physical and semiotic aspects of the
sensory aesthetics of the police radio that has to operate in
this ecology. Given the information in Table 2 and Figure
3, it is logical to conclude that the sensory aesthetic should
embody a rugged and tough look, which unequivocally
conveys that the radio can operate at low temperatures and
withstand extreme weather elements (sleet, snow, rain,
etc.).
These sensory aesthetic qualities when designed into the
product will enhance appeal and make it more convincing.
In other words, if a product has a sensory aesthetic
incongruent to its ecology, and even if it meets performance
specifications, the product may be perceived as unfit for the
ecology in which it has to operate.
In the semiotic standpoint the product has to resolve the
conflicting aesthetics of the two ethnicities (Tibetan and
Chinese) it tries to bridge. Furthermore, it needs to have an
A social group develops its own aesthetic expectations
derived from its culture [elements and dimensions]. The
cultural-aesthetic axis of a certain group is modulated based
on where it lies (high\low) on the dimensions of culture [6]
as shown in Table 3.
Due to space constraints, we have chosen to illustrate one
element (symbols) and one power dimension (masculinity
vs. feminity) of culture in the law enforcement context.
Symbols are words, meanings, gestures and objects that
carry often complex meanings recognized within that
culture. Symbols are used to acquire and transmit patterned
ways of thinking, feeling and reacting by a social group
with the intent of providing group identity and herald its
achievements. Law enforcement, as a culture, is rich with
symbols that are used to send both explicit and implicit
messages to within and without. A flavor/idea of this
symbology can be seen from the uniforms (Figure 4),
artifacts (ornamental and\or functional), including the
architecture of their buildings, design and styling of
transport vehicles, design of workspaces, among other
things. In this regard, symbology does share some common
traits with semiotics discussed in the preceding section.
Institutions, such as police departments, strive to create a
shared framework of mental models amongst its members.
Sociologists consider this shared mental model as an
‘ideology’ [of an institution] that helps its members to
interpret the environment and develop prescriptions on how
the environment should be structured.
Cultural High Low
Dimension
Power distance High status Youthfulness
(degree to which
the unequal
distribution of
power is expected
and accepted.)
Individuality Expressiveness Familiarity
(being self
sufficient as
opposed to being
well integrated in
 the group’s social a. The sensory aesthetic should be in harmony with the
fabric.) symbology (Figure 4) – color, styling, etc. – used by a
particular police department
Toughness – Performance Artistry b. The sensory aesthetic needs to communicate ‘symbolic
a.k.a., value’ of a product. For example, the sensory aesthetic
masculinity\femi- of a police radio should express itself as a reliable
nity (tough vs. connectivity tool with the rest of the force; and it
tender qualities.) should express to the citizens that additional help could
Uncertainty Reliability Novelty be summoned at a moment’s notice. The latter may
avoidance (extent dictate design issues such as where it is worn on one’s
to which people person [prominently displaying it to the citizens], quick
feel threatened by accessibility, etc.)
ambiguity.) c. The sensory aesthetic (physical, auditory, visual, etc.)
may have to be shaped by symbolic codes that might
Long-term Timelessness Fashionableness be routine or peculiar to the law enforcement group.
orientation (extent An example of this would be the 10-codes (verbal,
to which people numeric codes used for common phrases – e.g., “10-
are future 32” stands for “man with gun” – intrinsic to police
oriented.) communication) used by police departments in the U.S.
This may require a sensory aesthetic – e.g., auditory
Table 3. Cultural-aesthetic axis: How the dimensions of and\or visual modes – that facilitates the enunciation
culture (high\low) modulate a group’s aesthetic preferences and sharp acoustic delivery of numerals (e.g., 10-0,
[6]. 10-1, 10-2, etc.)

The masculinity vs. feminity power dimension refers to the

Figure 4. A sample of police symbology (uniforms, artifacts,
etc.) from around the world. (A) Tibet; (B) India; (C)
Philippines; (D) Iran; (C) Delaware, USA.
The uniform, as a symbol, is thus used not only to
distinguish the police officers from the rest of society (in-
group vs. out-group), but also to help them develop a shared
mental model so that they can function as a cohesive unit.
The above discussion demonstrated the significance of
symbology in law enforcement. Thus a product used in this
environment is rife with meaning in the symbolic
standpoint. Thus the sensory aesthetic of a law
enforcement product should deliver the symbolism that
would be expected of it by its users. Some select examples
of how this could be accomplished are listed below. (as
noted earlier, the filters may overlap depending on the
product and context; and in this example the reader may
notice an overlap between culture and ecology.)
distribution of emotional roles between the genders in that
it contrasts tough masculine against tender feminine
qualities. The masculinity-feminity dimension should be
seen as a social construct that transcends gender because of
the fact that social groups tend to perceive
masculinity\feminity even in inanimate objects.
Although law enforcement is stereotyped as hyper
masculine, it may not be the case with every law
enforcement department. For instance, ethnographic
research done by our colleagues had revealed an interesting
contrast between the London metro and the Korean police
departments. Based on the history, political and cultural
systems prevailing in each one of their countries, the former
prefer to portray themselves as a friendlier, softer, caring
and not-so-masculine group to the citizenry for the most
part – i.e., unless they are threatened. The latter [Korea]
show a preference to portray themselves as tough, assertive
and very masculine. These two very different mindsets
were then articulated in the sensory aesthetic [form factor]
of the radios – same radio with different form factors --
designed for them. This was verified in the form factor
testing phase and the final preferences are shown in Figure
5.

7

London Metro: Less Korean Police: Tough,
masculine, friendly and assertive and highly
caring: a softer & rounded masculine: angular & edgy
form factor form factor
Figure 5. Sensory aesthetic based on an organization’s cultural
mindset.
As indicated above, determining a group’s cultural
dimensions can provide insights on the kind of sensory
aesthetics that might be desirable and acceptable.
Behavior
One of the major activities of law enforcement is to deter
crime merely through “presence patrols.” In a prosematic
behaviors (described earlier) standpoint, because it
concerns territorial protection and defense, it involves the
execution of what are known as “signature displays” and
“challenge displays” [19]. The former are a form of
asserting power visually and verbally, and the latter may
involve dynamic posturing.
Figure 6. Signature & challenge displays of law enforcement
officers
As seen in the figure above, the [organic form] of the
signature display consists of a sufficiently tensed
musculature (e.g., chest-up) resulting in assertive posture
and vigilant facial expression. It is also expressed through
its non-organic forms such as a sharp & snappy uniform
(contrast this with the civilians in the background) and law-
enforcement related equipment (on the belt), cap\beret, and
insignia. Challenge display is expressed through the gait
and authoritative pacing, display and swinging of the baton,
sound of shoes hitting the pavement, etc.
The above discussion demonstrates that the sensory
aesthetic of a law enforcement product should bolster the
behaviors intrinsic to it. This will require the product to
display through its form, sounds, etc., character attributes
such as “bold,” “assertive,” and “strong”; and
compositional attributes such as “dependable,”
“trustworthy” and “incorruptible.” Some of these traits may
have endogenous value in that they serve to prime, prepare
and promote assertive behaviors in the officer. In the case
of a 2-way radio, besides its form and color, the aforesaid
traits may be facilitated through sound (radio chirps and
tonal feedbacks), virtual interface (bold and simple layout,
type of font, crisp screen transitions, etc.) to mention a few.
Likewise, a law enforcement product (e.g., radio) has an
exogenous dimension in that it needs to convey through its
sensory aesthetic – particularly form and finish – to the
community at large that the officer is equipped with tools
that are dependable and high quality. This, in turn, will not
only enhance the image of the officer, but will also serve to
amplify the value of his or her ‘behaviors’ – and by
extension the police department he belongs to – in the eyes
of the community that seeks its protection.
CLOSING THOUGHTS
Our research has indicated there is no established tradition
to develop the aesthetic of a product’s physical and\or
virtual elements. In most cases, a set of functional
requirements that a product needs to fulfill are identified
based on generative design research or contextual inquiry.
During this research, some cultural issues (e.g.,
appropriate\inappropriate colors, shape or symbols) may be
accidentally discovered, but this may not necessarily inform
or shape the aesthetics of a product. Based on this
information (functional and sometimes cultural), the
industrial and\or the interaction designer is given a set of
specifications to work with and the designer intuits his way
towards a particular aesthetic based on his hunches,
predispositions and preferences. On most occasions, this is
driven by the designer’s tastes and cultural background,
fads of the moment or ephemeral trends native to the
designer’s ecology. Unfortunately, this ad hoc approach
doesn’t reliably deliver the desired aesthetic results.
Reaping success through such an ad hoc approach is
predicated on luck, exceptional imagination and artistic
ingenuity of the designer and large number of trials and
errors and iterative testing
The sensory aesthetic approach, on the other hand, lays out
a systematic process to uncover the aesthetic desires of a
specific target audience. As discussed earlier, it filters out
the [desired-ideal] aesthetic by trying to understand the
consumers’ deep structures, ecology, culture, affordance
needs and epoch in a particular product-user interaction
context. Obviously, we do not claim that this is an
exhaustive and comprehensive approach to inform the
development of a product’s aesthetic. However, it is our
belief that it provides a framework and lays out a pathway
to get to the [aesthetic] destination in an informed manner.
The sensory aesthetic approach may not only increase the
chances for success but may also reduce the trial and error
approach designers are currently forced to adopt in the
absence of a systematic approach.
Last but not least, the execution and the artistic ingenuity of
the designer is still a vital factor in translating the
information gleaned through the six filters into appropriate
aesthetic expressions. Put another way, a good musical
score or recipe can only succeed in the interpretations of a
skilled string quartet or hands of a chef.
The methods and tools (design research, ethnography,
measurement of cultural dimensions, etc.) to filter the
sensory aesthetics, through the six filters, are beyond the
scope of this paper. However, in closing we wish to make a
larger point: despite the prognostications “never the twain
shall meet” concerning science and art, the sensory
aesthetic approach has demonstrated the exact opposite;
that social science can inform the development of aesthetics
– thus enriching art. And, design [art] in turn can cast ideas
about who we are and how we should behave into
permanent and tangible forms [22], posing a rich set of
research questions to social scientists.
Science and Art are not dichotomous, mutually exclusive
fields but can be combined to create a strong synergy. So in
our opinion there exists a rich connection between science
and art, which is pregnant with possibilities, waiting to be
tapped to its fullest potential.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Mark Palmer (Senior Manager, Motorola) for
giving us the scientific license to explore the nexus between
the arts and the sciences in the context of product design.
Scott Richards for providing us the example concerning the
police radio design variations (London Metro and Korean
Police). And, Shantel Biangel, for the ‘six filters’ graphic
that helped us visually articulate the sensory aesthetic
framework.
REFERENCES
1. Snow, C.P. The Two Cultures. Cambridge University Press.
New York, NY, USA, 1993.
2. Balmond, C. and Smith, J. Informal. Prestel, New York, NY.
USA, 2002
3. Cheney, S. and Cheney, M. Art and the Machine: An Account
of Industrial Design in 20th Century America. McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY, 1936.
4. Chandler, D. Semiotics: The Basics (2nd ed.). Routledge, New
York, NY, USA, 2007.
5. Norman, D. A. Emotional design: Why we Love (or Hate)
Everyday Things. Basic Books, New York, NY, USA, 2004.
6. Jordan, P.W. Designing Pleasurable Products. Taylor &
Francis, Philadelphia, PA, 2000.
7. Dissanayake, E. Homo Aestheticus: Where Art Comes From
and Why. The Free Press, New York, NY, USA. 1992.
8. Coates, D. Watches Tell More Than Time: Product Design,
Information, and the Quest for Elegance. McGraw-Hill, New
York, NY, USA, 2003.
9. Winkler, Design Language: Confluence of Behavioral, Social,
and Cultural Factors. In J. Frascara (Ed.). Design and the
Social Sciences: Making Connections. Taylor and Francis,
New York, NY, USA, 2002.
10. Gibson, J. The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems.
Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA, USA, 1966.
11. Lewalski, Z.M. Product Esthetics: An Interpretation for
Designers. Design & Development Engineering Press, Carson
City, NV, USA, 1988.
12. Ambady, N., Bernieri, F.J. and Richeson, J.A. Toward a
Histology of Social Behavior: Judgmental Accuracy from Thin
Slices of the Behavioral Stream. In M.F. Zanna (Ed.).
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 201-271,
Academic Press, New York, NY, USA, 2000.
13. Corbusier, Le. Towards a New Architecture. Dover
Publications, New York, NY, USA, 1986.
14. Crilly, N. Moultrie, J., & Clarkson, P.J. Seeing things:
consumer response to the visual domain in product design.
Design Studies, 25, (2004), 547-577.
15. Zajonc, R. B. Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no
inferences. American Psychologist, 35, (1980), 151-175.
16. McCoy, M. The post industrial designer: Interpreter of
technology. In Proc. Product Semantics 1989 Conference,
Publications of the Univeristy of Industrial Arts, Helsinki,
Finland, 1990.
17. Nagamachi, M. Kansei engineering as a powerful consumer-
oriented technology for product development. Applied
Ergonomics, 33, (2002), 289-294.
18. Ramachandran, V.S. A Brief Tour of Human Consciousness:
From Impostor Poodles to Purple Numbers. PI Press, New
York, NY, 2004.
19. MacLean, P.D. Psychomatic disease and the “visceral brain”:
Recent developments bearing on the Papez theory of emotion.
Psychomatic Medicine, 11, (1949), 338-353.
20. You, H.C. & Chen, K. Applications of affordance and
semantics in product design. Design Studies, 28, (2007), 23-
38.
21. Hofstede, G. Cultures Consequences: Comparing Values,
Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations across nations.
(2nd ed.). Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2001.
22. Forty, A. Objects of desire: Design and Society since 1750.
Thames & Hudson, Inc., New York, NY, USA, 2000.